The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201400011 Review Comments 2015-11-10Short Review Comments Report for: SDP201400011 SubApplication Type: Jim Price Chevrolet - Minor Minor Amendment Date Completed:06/16/2014 Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:03/13/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based Division: Date Completed:02/21/2014 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated February 3, 2014. No comments or conditions. Division: Date Completed:03/04/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:03/04/2014 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:02/28/2014 Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:03/01/2014 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:03/04/2014 Reviewer:Max Greene Engineering Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:02/21/2014 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:There appears to be three (3) seperate structures on the plans for this development. The developer will need to submit a proposed private road name for the entry way before plans can be approved. Division: Page:1of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015 Please contact this office with a list of names for approval before the final plans are submitted. Date Completed:06/18/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/04/2014 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance states that when there are three (3) or more addressable structures using the same access. If the development plan is to have three separate structures remains the same then a private road name will have to be created. Division: Date Completed:06/16/2014 Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/17/2014 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/13/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/03/2014 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 5/23/14 No comments or objections Division: Date Completed:06/16/2014 Reviewer:Max Greene Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:WPO plans are under review at this time. Site plan may be aproved after the WPO plans have been approved. Division: Date Completed:06/12/2014 Reviewer:Francis MacCall Zoning Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:I have counted 23 approved on a plan and 23 not approved on a plan my plan is marked. Further marking of the lights (on the review plans) can be made to note which ones were approved in the 70’s plan (See this plan in the 94-62 folder for this lighting) with the lighting requirements and that read “All lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to disturb adjoining properties.” and which ones may have come after. All lights that do not show up as approved lighting on a site plan need to be brought into compliance with today’s ordinance. We can certainly work out which one they are or possibly work out a compromise that is acceptable to Zoning and the ARB. We can discuss this Division: Date Completed:09/22/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Division: Page:2of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015 Reviews Comments: Date Completed:09/25/2014 Reviewer:Troy Austin VDOT Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:We have VDOT’s approval from the past two reviews and nothing changed with the frontage or anything of such, rather we’ve been trying to remedy the lighting and parking issues. Thus let’s move on and utilize their previous approvals. Division: Date Completed:09/24/2014 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:09/22/2014 Reviewer:Francis MacCall Zoning Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:Lighting issues resolved and revised plan has provided appropriate notations regarding existing lighting along with an affidavit regarding the existing lighting. Parking numbers have been discussed with the Planner see comments from Chris Perez. Division: Date Completed:09/18/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Add the cut sheet for the light fixture labeled "I" to the plan. Division: Date Completed:09/05/2014 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments:Approved. Division: Date Completed:09/10/2014 Reviewer:Max Greene Engineering Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:09/23/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/17/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Please make the following modifications to the plan: 1.Parking calculation. On sheet SP3 there are 105 service spaces for Existing Auto Dealership depicted upfront; however, sheet SP2 lists 102 spaces. I believe the reason why these numbers do not match is previously on sheet SP3 the 11 spaces next to the existing dumpster were 8 spaces because of the new proposed entrance. Now that the entrance is no longer being proposed the spaces are now depicted as 11 spaces. The 3 additional spaces would account for this difference. Thus please revise sheet SP2’s calculation for Service Parking for Existing Auto Dealership to match the revised sheet SP3 (105 service spaces for the existing auto dealership) vs the 102 currently listed. 2.Parking calculation. On sheet SP3 there are 32 Service Spaces depicted for the new Division: Page:3of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015 maintenance building (at the rear of the property); however, sheet SP2 lists 33 service spaces for the new maintenance building. I believe the reason why these numbers do not match is previously on sheet SP3 the three rows of spaces near the proposed gate were 9 and 20. Now that the entrance is no longer being proposed and the spaces seemed to have been re-measured and numbered the spaces switched to 10 and 18. Thus please revise sheet SP2’s calculation for Service Parking for New Maintenance building to match the revised sheet SP3 (32 service spaces for the New Maintenance building) vs the 33 currently listed. 3.Landscape Calculations. On sheet SP8, three (3) plantings are depicted/proposed on the plan in what was previously the landscape islands at the rear of the site for the new entrance; however, those landscape islands are no longer proposed but the trees remain on the plan. As such, the plantings (1) PO, (1) AR and (1) AR should be relocated to an appropriate location where they can truly be planted. Revise. If the three (3) plantings mentioned above are lost, the site will lose 2,675 SF of proposed tree canopy. These three (3) plantings should be planted elsewhere on the site, potentially at the rear of the site near the new facility to maintain the required tree canopy. Revise to assure the tree canopy requirements are met. 4.Landscape Calculations. Based on the modifications to the site plan, the landscape requirements on sheet SP8, under Landscape Requirements, Project Area, does not appear to match the rest of the sheets. Currently sheet SP8 lists it as 53,275 SF; however sheet SP3 lists 52,200 SF. Please assure these match and are accurate. Date Completed:10/17/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments:No further comments. ARB approval issued on 9/23/14 and remains valid. Division: Date Completed:10/22/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:All items addressed. Ready for approval pending signature copy of plans. Division: Date Completed:10/24/2014 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:07/08/2015 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:07/13/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Per discussions with John and Jay the County will accept metal, such as; cast iron, copper, or stainless steel. Revise the plans to assure it is listed and for what duration at the crossover. If you have any questions about this call John Seay or Jay Schlothauer. Division: Date Completed:07/13/2015 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison@serviceauthority.org] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:05 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201411: Jim Price - LOR #1 Division: Page:4of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015 Chris, I have reviewed the above referenced application and have the following comments: •Add a callout note to the existing water meter which reads “ACSA to verify water meter size prior to issuing a building permit. The applicant will submit overall site fixture counts, by building, prior to a building permit being issued. If a water meter upgrade is required the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval showing the installation of a new water meter vault.” •Call out fittings and gate valves for the proposed fire line tap on the existing ACSA water main. •Add an overall note to the plan that prior to any work commencing the applicant will contact the ACSA (Alexander Morrison at 434-977-4511 ext. 116) to setup inspection services for work associated with the water system. •The applicant is proposing a private water main crossing under a private sanitary sewer lateral. The health department regulations require the lateral to be metal and not plastic. There is a discrepancy whether metal is allowed in a commercial lateral under the county plumbing requirements. The applicant should contact John Seay immediately to discuss this in case there will be any issues during construction. •Confirm what will drain to the internal trench drains that have a proposed connection with the sanitary sewer system. Will there be any storm water or ground water that can enter the trench drains? Let me know if you have any questions. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (O) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434-979-0698 Date Completed:10/16/2015 Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/27/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:52 AM To: 'Mike Myers' <mmyers@dominioneng.com> Subject: Jim Price LOR Mike, I just called Alex Morrison of ACSA, he’s finalizing his comments on the LOR now. He will be providing these to you soon. It appears he is going to have additional changes to the LOR. Otherwise, Jay Schlothauer has no objections to the revisions and neither do I. Pending ACSA review comments. Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Division: Page:5of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015 Date Completed:08/13/2015 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on plans revised July 27, 2015. Division: Date Completed:10/26/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:11/03/2015 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:11/10/2015 Reviewer:Christopher Perez CD Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: Division: Page:6of6 County of AlbemarlePrinted On:November 10, 2015